STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5822

December 2, 1980

COUNTIES:

Board of commissioners--authority to appoint director Chief executive in unified county--authority to appoint director

The county executive of a county adopting the optional unified form of county government may appoint the director of the county tax and equalization department with the concurrence of a majority vote of the county board of commissioners.

Honorable Lewis N. Dodak

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48933

You have asked for my opinion as to the following question:

1973 PA 139, as amended; MCLA 45.551 et seq; MSA 5.302(51) et seq, authorizes counties to adopt an optional unified form of county government providing for either an elected county executive or an appointed county manager. Oakland County and Bay County have each adopted the unified form of county government with county executives. Bay County's implementation of 1973 PA 139, supra, is discussed in OAG, 1979-1980, No 5493, p 168 (May 17, 1979), concerning the status of various county boards, and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5576, p 427 (October 8, 1979), concerning the continuation of the county road commission.

The powers and duties of the county executive in 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 8, include the following:

In 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 6(i), (1) and (m), the appointment authority of the county board of commissioners is delineated, and no power is conferred to appoint the director of the county tax and equalization department.

In 1893 PA 206 Sec. 34(3), as last amended by 1979 PA 114; MCLA 211.34; MSA 7.52, the Legislature has authorized the establishment of a county tax or equalization department, as follows:

While the county board of commissioners may adopt rules relating to the authority of departments of the county, 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 6(o), and may consolidate departments, 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 6(p), each department is to be headed by a director, 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 13, to be appointed by the county executive subject to concurrence by the majority of the county board of commissioners, 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 8(e).

The Legislature has indicated its intention that 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 20, be controlling as to matters to which it relates:

Since 1973 PA 139, supra, Sec. 8(e), which specifies the method of appointing department directors, is a specific provision in a comprehensive statute authorizing the formation of unified county government, Sec. 8(e) prevails as to the appointment of department directors in counties adopting that form of government over the general provisions regarding such appointments in 1893 PA 206, supra, Sec. 34(3) which is part of a codification of procedures for the assessment and collection of property taxes. The applicable rule of statutory construction was expressed in Bullinger v Gremore, 343 Mich 516, 544; 72 NW2d 777 (1955), quoting from 1 Lewis' Sutherland, Statutory Construction, p 532:

The application of 1973 PA 139, supra, regarding department director appointments in lieu of the provisions of 1893 PA 206, supra, Sec. 34(3), does not contravene Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25, which provides, in part, that '[n]o law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only' by virtue of its being a complete act in itself for the establishment of and operation as a unified county government. See Evans Products Co v State Bd of Escheats, 307 Mich 506, 535-538; 12 NW2d 448 (1943), Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210, 276-279; 200 NW2d 628 (1972), and Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 389 Mich 441, 471-473; 208 NW2d 469 (1973).

It is my opinion, therefore, that if a county operating under 1973 PA 139, supra, chooses to have a tax and equalization department the director of the department may be appointed by the county executive with the concurrence of the county board of commissioners.

Frank J. Kelley